The farm worker studies are a big part of why I buy organic. I have the money to buy food that harms the workers less, and I feel a moral obligation to consider that with my purchases. Not everyone can afford to think that way, but I can, and I think it’s important. Happy to spend a little more to not harm my fellow humans. Same goes for animal welfare, if I can source meat from hunters, or smaller farms who treat their animals better, and also for wild seafood or farmed tilapia that does less damage to our oceans. Again not everyone can afford to do this, and I don’t judge anyone for their choices or financial limitations. But I do think those factors should be part of the conversation. (I’m not to the end yet so maybe you’ll get there).
What would be great is the evidence behind human health impact (or not, and not taking into account animal or environmental welfare) of organic, gmo, steroids, antibiotics in the carnivore food supply. It seems like for every additional descriptive label on a pack of chicken breast (for example) increases the price by 30%.
You have a point. This is why the USDA and FDA have standards and verification programs for claims on labels. The food industry found long ago that consumers will pay more for a product with claims than one without, and there is no real added value to the product. For example, rBST in milk and hormones in poultry. We are starting to see gluten free claims on products that are as far away from wheat protein as you can get, like raw beef. A consumer is more likely to pick out a steak with a gluten free claim than one without. Everyone is trying to get a competitive edge in world of commodities.
An interesting take, but ultimately of little utility. The same argument could be made about anything we buy. The opportunity costs of buying organic are the same as any other marketed product - spend less here and you can spend/save more there. I think a more interesting take would be the connection of eating organic with other healthy activities. In other words, and as noted in your discussion, if people who eat organic are more likely to make other healthy choices, is that causation or correlation?
Thanks for the comment! I don't think I agree with you.
You're right that you could make the same opportunity cost argument with other products, but each price premium will be more or less "worth paying" depending on the product. IMO, the differences are worth investigating if the product is ubiquitous enough, and food is ubiquitous. We all eat it.
Organic foods have a lot of marketing behind them suggesting they're healthier, and I get a lot of questions about this topic. So I see it as a useful discussion to unpack whether the supposed health benefits of organic are worth the price premium. Just my two cents speaking from the perspective as someone who gives information to a broad audience (I don't expect every single post to resonate with every single reader, but my hope is that enough do that the reader finds Two Percent helpful).
Oh, and to answer your question: definitely correlation! :)
As I mentioned in the conversation, I do think Costco is a good option for people who want to buy organic without as much of a price penalty. (I'd assume the other warehouse retailers are similar).
The farm worker studies are a big part of why I buy organic. I have the money to buy food that harms the workers less, and I feel a moral obligation to consider that with my purchases. Not everyone can afford to think that way, but I can, and I think it’s important. Happy to spend a little more to not harm my fellow humans. Same goes for animal welfare, if I can source meat from hunters, or smaller farms who treat their animals better, and also for wild seafood or farmed tilapia that does less damage to our oceans. Again not everyone can afford to do this, and I don’t judge anyone for their choices or financial limitations. But I do think those factors should be part of the conversation. (I’m not to the end yet so maybe you’ll get there).
Thank you for including a direct link to the transcript, much appreciated!
Of course. Thanks for letting me know it was useful!
What would be great is the evidence behind human health impact (or not, and not taking into account animal or environmental welfare) of organic, gmo, steroids, antibiotics in the carnivore food supply. It seems like for every additional descriptive label on a pack of chicken breast (for example) increases the price by 30%.
You have a point. This is why the USDA and FDA have standards and verification programs for claims on labels. The food industry found long ago that consumers will pay more for a product with claims than one without, and there is no real added value to the product. For example, rBST in milk and hormones in poultry. We are starting to see gluten free claims on products that are as far away from wheat protein as you can get, like raw beef. A consumer is more likely to pick out a steak with a gluten free claim than one without. Everyone is trying to get a competitive edge in world of commodities.
An interesting take, but ultimately of little utility. The same argument could be made about anything we buy. The opportunity costs of buying organic are the same as any other marketed product - spend less here and you can spend/save more there. I think a more interesting take would be the connection of eating organic with other healthy activities. In other words, and as noted in your discussion, if people who eat organic are more likely to make other healthy choices, is that causation or correlation?
Thanks for the comment! I don't think I agree with you.
You're right that you could make the same opportunity cost argument with other products, but each price premium will be more or less "worth paying" depending on the product. IMO, the differences are worth investigating if the product is ubiquitous enough, and food is ubiquitous. We all eat it.
Organic foods have a lot of marketing behind them suggesting they're healthier, and I get a lot of questions about this topic. So I see it as a useful discussion to unpack whether the supposed health benefits of organic are worth the price premium. Just my two cents speaking from the perspective as someone who gives information to a broad audience (I don't expect every single post to resonate with every single reader, but my hope is that enough do that the reader finds Two Percent helpful).
Oh, and to answer your question: definitely correlation! :)
‘organic eaters have lower pesticide levels in their blood’. I’m ok with less pesticides in my blood.
This is great. I view organic food like AG1. Certainly won’t hurt you but isn’t really going to move the needle a ton either.
That seems like a fair comparison!
As I mentioned in the conversation, I do think Costco is a good option for people who want to buy organic without as much of a price penalty. (I'd assume the other warehouse retailers are similar).